On the go and no time to finish that story right now? Your News is the place for you to save content to read later from any device. Register with us and content you save will appear here so you can access them to read later.

The Shadow Brokers as the hackers call themselves appear to have an activist motive to create awareness around the weaponised exploits stored in US spy agency computers - these are flaws, bugs, and mis-features that should be reported to software and hardware vendors so that they can be fixed.

It'll happen again, and when it does, bad things will happen. Much of the offensive software that'll leak will target vulnerabilities which are new and not known. That means there won't be a defence against new malware created to hit such weak spots.

Storing new and dangerous malware is obviously a bad idea, but in the age of Big Data and info analytics by infinitely scalable cloud computing there's potential for misuse of almost any type of stored records.

This year, the ABS decided to change its policy for the Census, and asked Australians for their names and addresses - and, these are tied up with the information that people put on the Census forms, which are mandatory to fill out on pain of large fines.

We also need to assess the impact of multiple large data sets being used together: what will be revealed, and how can it be used?

While the ABS and the government promised that the census data would be safe and "de-identified", experts are now poking holes in that statement.

Names of individuals in the census will be obfuscated using so-called Statistical Linkage Keys (SLKs) which can be used across multiple data sets. Such as the massive medical data set released recently, with all sorts of sensitive personal health information like doctors visits, illnesses, mental health problems and more.

The idea is that the more data sets you can link and compare, the greater the insight.

That means the census information combined with other data sets is a gold mine for health insurers, who will sift through large amounts of information to find that one little excuse not to pay out on policies.

Scientists who've in the past had to battle ethics committees and get the express permission of the people they needed for human research could be tempted to bypass that rigmarole to speed things up.

Blackmailers, violent ex-spouses, and yeah, journalists too, wanting to puzzle together the lives of for instance the politicians who decided that to carelessly release large amounts of sensitive and badly protected data could also have fun here.

Risking the wrath of historians and other researchers, it's just not safe anymore to store sensitive data for any longer than required. We also need to assess the impact of multiple large data sets being used together: what will be revealed, and how can it be used?

As one security expert put it, "data should be seen as a liability as well as an asset", meaning anyone storing it really needs to be a custodian of information and not just a miner of it - and we probably need a good few court cases here, to make it clear that our privacy really does matter, and carelessness around that will really cost.